What is a "Test Oath?"

When someone is inaugurated to public office, he or she takes the "oath of
office." This website argues that no one should be permitted to hold public office
who does not take a Christian "test oath." In the meantime, this website argues
that Christians should voluntarily take a Christian "test oath" when
required to take an oath of office.

There are two definitions of "test oath" to be found in American legal
history. The subject can be confusing because some court cases have used both definitions
indiscriminately.

A "Test Oath" affirms a further loyalty. In the past, this additional loyalty
was to a king or a church.

Today, any oath which has an explicit reference to one's religious beliefs is often
called a "test oath" (although origininally such an oath was simply an oath).

A Short History of Test Oaths

In the Middle Ages, kings, princes, and feudal lords demanded oaths of loyalty from
their vassals. Not just to the prince, but to his religion as well. After the Reformation,
if a prince became a Lutheran, everyone in his realm became a Lutheran. By law. Anyone
accepting a political office or public trust took an oath of loyalty to the prince and to
the Catholic (or Lutheran, or whatever) faith.

In America, many of the colonies limited political offices to members of the Church of
England, or other denominations. After the Revolution against Britain, very few people
wanted their tax dollars to pay the salaries of the clergy for the Church of England (no
surprise). But which denomination would be supported by taxes and oaths? The colonists
decided to eliminate taxes and oaths which favored any particular denomination. Before the
Constitution was written, every state had eliminated the requirement that public office
holders be members of a particular denomination. The Revolution (not the First Amendment)
effectively marked the end of test oaths and "established churches."

But every state still required that politicians believe in God. Atheists could not take an oath of any kind. An oath
was a declaration of belief in God. That's what an oath is: The
oath taker declares that he believes in God and that he is fully aware that God will judge
him if what he says is false or if what he promises is not fulfilled.

At the time the Constitution was ratified, these two points were universally
understood:

An oath could be taken only by someone who believed in God.

An oath of office could be taken by anyone who believed in God, regardless of
denominational affiliation. In short, no other "religious test" would be
required.

Both before and after the Constitution was ratified, the states required candidates to
be Biblically qualified to take the oath of office. They were not required to affirm their
membership in a particular denomination, but they were required to swear that they were
Christians. If you were not a Christian, you could not hold office.

As an example, see the Delaware Constitution, Art. 22 (adopted Sept.
20, 1776):

person who shall be chosen a member of either house,
or appointed to any office or place of trust . . .
shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
"I ________, do profess faith in God the Father,
and in Jesus Christ His only Son,
and in the Holy Ghost, one God, Blessed for evermore;
and I do acknowledge the holy scripture
of the Old and New Testaments to be
given by divine inspiration."[2]

All states required Christian belief before the American Revolution. There was no other
"religious test."

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state
legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of
the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;
but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public
trust under the United States.

At this point in time, the requirement of "an oath" was a requirement of an
act of religious worship, a solemn declaration made in the presence of God. (The option to
"affirm" rather than "swear" was included for the benefit of Quakers,
who would not take an oath, but did believe in God.) The debates in the state ratifying
conventions indicate that many Ratifiers understood the paragraph to be speaking of what
might be called a "denominational" test. That is, no one would be required to be
a member of a particular church/denomination. They assumed office-holders would be
Christian. After drafting the Constitution, the Signers returned to their home states and
drafted state constitutions which limited public office to Christians. In their minds, the
Constitution did not change anything, but merely protected what already existed.

Some scholars have argued that this provision applies only to Federal Offices, but not
for state offices. In other words, the states would still be free to limit state offices
to Episcopalians, if they so chose. But the states had already ended this practice anyway.
They didn't want the federal government to give privileges to who-knows-what
denomination over the others.

On the other hand, the debates indicate some were concerned
that an atheist could become President. In reply, men like Theophilus
Parsons of Newburyport, MA, said Americans would never vote for an atheist,
but an oath would be of no use, because an atheist would simply lie (swear falsely that he
was a Christian). (When God commanded oaths, did He forget that some people might take an
oath falsely?) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, whose Commentaries
on the Constitution were recognized as the most authoritative statement of the meaning
of the Constitution, declared that as a result of this Article, "the Calvinist . . .
and the Infidel may sit down at the common table of the national councils without any
inquisition into their faith or mode of worship."[3] If this is
true, Article VI of
the Constitution is a disaster. It is completely unBiblical.

Test Oaths Today

By both definitions, "test oaths" are dead today. Not only are denominational
test oaths dead, but every form of oath (as a calling upon God to judge truth) is dead.
Justice Story and other constitutional authorities have given secularists ammunition with
which to attack the Christian roots of our legal system. The
mythological doctrine of "separation of church and state" (read: "separation
of Christianity and government") took generations to construct. It is not
found in the text of the Constitution. Because of this doctrine, secularists today argue
that any religious content at all in an oath is "unconstitutional." Secularists
call the requirement that political office holders believe in God a "test oath."
But it was not until 1961 that the U.S. Supreme Court declared the requirement to believe in God "unconstitutional.[4]
It was the necessary preparation for the decisions a few months later to ban prayer and
Bible-reading from the states' schools.

"So Help Us, God!"

Although the Constitution does not require it, virtually every President since
Washington has added the words "so help me, God" to his oath of office,
indicating that they did not believe Article VI required completely secular oaths. But a
strange thing has happened. A very strange thing. Although secularists were able to get
"test oaths" declared unconstitutional (1961), many legislatures and courts
still require use of the phrase "so help me, God" in all oaths. Atheists have
gone to court on several occasions seeking to have this phrase eliminated entirely.

They were logical to do so; the doctrine of the "separation of church and
state" as articulated by the Supreme Court demands secular oaths. But courts were
reluctant to face the adverse publicity such a decision would have. What they did was
declare that the phrase "so help me, God" does not refer to God! One court said
it has "no theological meaning." Without directly ruling on the
issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has called the phrase "ceremonial deism." Back in
the days of "test oaths," that same Court denounced "deism" as a form of "infidelity," or unbelief.
Many, many Christians have thus taken an oath which the U.S. Supreme
Court has defined as an acknowledgment that the
oath-taker is an unbeliever. Christians must take steps to release themselves from
these secular oaths and take a Christian "test oath." To do so would be to
repudiate the entire edifice of secular church-state theory the courts have built over the
years.

Today, George Washington's
prophecy is coming true. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the oath is a mere formality. It "simply" requires the candidate to take a
secular "oath" (or affirmation) that he will "support the
constitution" and perform his job "to the best of my ability." As a result,
most people who have sworn to "support the constitution" have never even read the document. Life and property
are now threatened by the government, whose officers no longer have Godly reputations.

We need to restore the "test oath." Not a loyalty to any political party, or
any ecclesiastical denomination, but allegiance to God.

NOTES

Webster's 1828 edition of the American Dictionary of the English
Language defines "oath" as follows:

A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what
is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates His
vengeance and renounces His favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a
promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false
oath is called perjury.

The decision was based on the myth of "separation of church and state,"
("free exercise" grounds) not Article VI. Some states continued requiring belief
in God from all public office holders for more than a decade after the Supreme Court ruled
such requirements "unconstitutional." [Back
to text]

Did God make a mistake by requiring oaths? After all, some people
might just lie.

Mr. PARSONS, (of Newburyport.) It has been objected that the Constitution provides no
religious test by oath, and we may have in power unprincipled men, atheists and pagans. No
man can wish more ardently than I do that all our public offices may be filled by men who
fear God and hate wickedness; but it must remain with the electors to give the government
this security. An oath will not do it. Will an unprincipled man be entangled by an oath?
Will an atheist or a pagan dread the vengeance of the Christian's God, a being, in his
opinion, the creature of fancy and credulity? It is a solecism in expression. No man is so
illiberal as to wish the confining places of honor or profit to any one sect of
Christians; but what security is it to government, that every public officer shall swear
that he is a Christian?
Jonathan Elliot, ed., Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as
recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787; Vol. 2, Debates in the
Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, of the Adoption of the Federal
Constitution: In Convention, Boston, Wednesday, January 23, 1788, p.90.